Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywordreqs and slacking arch teams
On January 2, 2020 6:35:08 PM EST, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: >Am Freitag, 3. Januar 2020, 00:25:06 CET schrieb Mike Pagano: >> On Thursday, January 2, 2020 3:32:12 PM EST Rolf Eike Beer wrote: >> > > - Allowed a simple "Add keyword(s) for package " >interface, >> > > >> > > that intelligently created an issue and a target list, and then >once >> > > the list was built, constantly ensured the list to be valid, or >> > > determined automatically when sub-work was completed and >reducing the >> > > published list automatically, and then responded to potential >issues >> > > based on changes in git, ( as opposed to being only triggered >when >> > > the bug was touched ) >> > >> > As someone who does both keywordings and stabilizations regularly >on hppa >> >> > and sparc I think I must share a bit of my experiences: >> >> >> hppa is making us keep old kernels around [1]. Should the kernel >team be >> doing more to get your attention then CC'ing hppa on all of the >kernel >> STABLEREQ bugs [2]? > >I only run vanilla-sources since there are still lot of cache >corruption >problems in hppa kernels, or whatever makes them flaky. > >Linux pioneer 5.4.6-parisc64 #1 SMP Fri Dec 27 10:23:09 CET 2019 >parisc64 >PA8800 (Mako) 9000/785/C8000 GNU/Linux >Linux voyager 5.4.6-parisc #1 Fri Dec 27 15:46:43 CET 2019 parisc >PA8600 (PCX- >W+) 9000/785/C3600 GNU/Linux > >So _I_ personally would say just drop old kernels, but that is in no >way >authorative. > >Eike Ugh. gentoo-sources is just a patch (trivial) on top of vanilla-kernel sources of each stable and LTS version. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywordreqs and slacking arch teams
On 02/01/20 23:35, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > Am Freitag, 3. Januar 2020, 00:25:06 CET schrieb Mike Pagano: >> On Thursday, January 2, 2020 3:32:12 PM EST Rolf Eike Beer wrote: - Allowed a simple "Add keyword(s) for package " interface, that intelligently created an issue and a target list, and then once the list was built, constantly ensured the list to be valid, or determined automatically when sub-work was completed and reducing the published list automatically, and then responded to potential issues based on changes in git, ( as opposed to being only triggered when the bug was touched ) >>> As someone who does both keywordings and stabilizations regularly on hppa >>> and sparc I think I must share a bit of my experiences: >> >> >> hppa is making us keep old kernels around [1]. Should the kernel team be >> doing more to get your attention then CC'ing hppa on all of the kernel >> STABLEREQ bugs [2]? > I only run vanilla-sources since there are still lot of cache corruption > problems in hppa kernels, or whatever makes them flaky. > > Linux pioneer 5.4.6-parisc64 #1 SMP Fri Dec 27 10:23:09 CET 2019 parisc64 > PA8800 (Mako) 9000/785/C8000 GNU/Linux > Linux voyager 5.4.6-parisc #1 Fri Dec 27 15:46:43 CET 2019 parisc PA8600 (PCX- > W+) 9000/785/C3600 GNU/Linux > > So _I_ personally would say just drop old kernels, but that is in no way > authorative. > > Eike Is it viable at all to test gentoo-sources or would it be better simply to unkeyword? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywordreqs and slacking arch teams
Am Freitag, 3. Januar 2020, 00:25:06 CET schrieb Mike Pagano: > On Thursday, January 2, 2020 3:32:12 PM EST Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > > - Allowed a simple "Add keyword(s) for package " interface, > > > > > > that intelligently created an issue and a target list, and then once > > > the list was built, constantly ensured the list to be valid, or > > > determined automatically when sub-work was completed and reducing the > > > published list automatically, and then responded to potential issues > > > based on changes in git, ( as opposed to being only triggered when > > > the bug was touched ) > > > > As someone who does both keywordings and stabilizations regularly on hppa > > > and sparc I think I must share a bit of my experiences: > > > hppa is making us keep old kernels around [1]. Should the kernel team be > doing more to get your attention then CC'ing hppa on all of the kernel > STABLEREQ bugs [2]? I only run vanilla-sources since there are still lot of cache corruption problems in hppa kernels, or whatever makes them flaky. Linux pioneer 5.4.6-parisc64 #1 SMP Fri Dec 27 10:23:09 CET 2019 parisc64 PA8800 (Mako) 9000/785/C8000 GNU/Linux Linux voyager 5.4.6-parisc #1 Fri Dec 27 15:46:43 CET 2019 parisc PA8600 (PCX- W+) 9000/785/C3600 GNU/Linux So _I_ personally would say just drop old kernels, but that is in no way authorative. Eike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywordreqs and slacking arch teams
On Thursday, January 2, 2020 3:32:12 PM EST Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > - Allowed a simple "Add keyword(s) for package " interface, > > > > that intelligently created an issue and a target list, and then once > > the list was built, constantly ensured the list to be valid, or > > determined automatically when sub-work was completed and reducing the > > published list automatically, and then responded to potential issues > > based on changes in git, ( as opposed to being only triggered when > > the bug was touched ) > > As someone who does both keywordings and stabilizations regularly on hppa > and sparc I think I must share a bit of my experiences: hppa is making us keep old kernels around [1]. Should the kernel team be doing more to get your attention then CC'ing hppa on all of the kernel STABLEREQ bugs [2]? [1] https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-kernel/gentoo-sources [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/700416 Mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2] ruby-ng.eclass: Include (-) in RUBY_TARGETS USE-dependencies
On 02/01/20 21:08, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-01-02 at 21:15 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Thu, 02 Jan 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> --- a/eclass/ruby-ng.eclass
>>> +++ b/eclass/ruby-ng.eclass
>>> @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ ruby_samelib() {
>>> local res=
>>> for _ruby_implementation in $(_ruby_get_all_impls); do
>>> has -${_ruby_implementation} $@ || \
>>> - res="${res}ruby_targets_${_ruby_implementation}?,"
>>> + res="${res}ruby_targets_${_ruby_implementation}(-)?,"
>>> done
>>>
>>> echo "[${res%,}]"
>> Hadn't we established that ruby_samelib() is dead code, no longer used
>> since 2010?
>>
> You did. However, it isn't marked as private API and I'm not the eclass
> maintainer to take care of removing public API. I have no clue if Ruby
> project doesn't have some secret overlays using it.
>
You can't use QA super-powerz ?! BDFL + sub-BDFL ?! *
* Thought the tags probably worth making explicit
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2] ruby-ng.eclass: Include (-) in RUBY_TARGETS USE-dependencies
On Thu, 2020-01-02 at 21:15 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 02 Jan 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> > --- a/eclass/ruby-ng.eclass
> > +++ b/eclass/ruby-ng.eclass
> > @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ ruby_samelib() {
> > local res=
> > for _ruby_implementation in $(_ruby_get_all_impls); do
> > has -${_ruby_implementation} $@ || \
> > - res="${res}ruby_targets_${_ruby_implementation}?,"
> > + res="${res}ruby_targets_${_ruby_implementation}(-)?,"
> > done
> >
> > echo "[${res%,}]"
>
> Hadn't we established that ruby_samelib() is dead code, no longer used
> since 2010?
>
You did. However, it isn't marked as private API and I'm not the eclass
maintainer to take care of removing public API. I have no clue if Ruby
project doesn't have some secret overlays using it.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywordreqs and slacking arch teams
> - Allowed a simple "Add keyword(s) for package " interface, > that intelligently created an issue and a target list, and then once > the list was built, constantly ensured the list to be valid, or > determined automatically when sub-work was completed and reducing the > published list automatically, and then responded to potential issues > based on changes in git, ( as opposed to being only triggered when > the bug was touched ) As someone who does both keywordings and stabilizations regularly on hppa and sparc I think I must share a bit of my experiences: -some arches are regularly forgotten to be CC'ed, which happens for the above arches quite regularly as they are exp -if I need to do a bug at a later point when I want to newly stabilize a given package for a new arch it is extremely helpful if - the package list was not reduced on a later point because parts were already handled - arch specifications for packages are reduced to the absolute need, i.e. especially not given if the arch list would match the initial CC list I use tatt for my work, and that automatically sorts out all packages that have non-matching package list. Sure, there could be improvements for several things in tatt, but that is IMHO absolutely right the way it is. So if you give all arches and I later decide to do the same bug on an additional arch then it will not do a single package. So if you want my work easier, then -don't forget to CC exp arches -don't clean the package list only because packages are already done -let tatt run on your dev box, or preferably in a new chroot yourself, on your package, and fix all the broken dependencies and stuff there yourself. Your amd64 laptop is still way faster than my crowded C8000, and doing a roundtrip through the bugtracker until you find time to fix it will just make you think of "slacking arch teams" next time. Thanks, Eike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2] ruby-ng.eclass: Include (-) in RUBY_TARGETS USE-dependencies
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> --- a/eclass/ruby-ng.eclass
> +++ b/eclass/ruby-ng.eclass
> @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ ruby_samelib() {
> local res=
> for _ruby_implementation in $(_ruby_get_all_impls); do
> has -${_ruby_implementation} $@ || \
> - res="${res}ruby_targets_${_ruby_implementation}?,"
> + res="${res}ruby_targets_${_ruby_implementation}(-)?,"
> done
>
> echo "[${res%,}]"
Hadn't we established that ruby_samelib() is dead code, no longer used
since 2010?
Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: uid/gid for turnserver
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:51 PM Andreas Schuerch wrote: > > Hi > > Net-im/coturn uses the user and group "turnserver". > I have not found an assignment in other distros for it and I do not have > any preferences. Please refer to the updated policy on this. https://bugs.gentoo.org/702460#c2 In summary, pick an unused UID/GID pair in the range 101..499, and update this file before you push your acct packages. https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/api.git/tree/files/uid-gid.txt
[gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2] ruby-ng.eclass: Include (-) in RUBY_TARGETS USE-dependencies
Using 2-style USE dependencies on packages not having the flag
in question is forbidden by PMS.
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny
---
eclass/ruby-ng.eclass | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/ruby-ng.eclass b/eclass/ruby-ng.eclass
index db701d81f4fc..85f464d9f30d 100644
--- a/eclass/ruby-ng.eclass
+++ b/eclass/ruby-ng.eclass
@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ ruby_samelib() {
local res=
for _ruby_implementation in $(_ruby_get_all_impls); do
has -${_ruby_implementation} $@ || \
- res="${res}ruby_targets_${_ruby_implementation}?,"
+ res="${res}ruby_targets_${_ruby_implementation}(-)?,"
done
echo "[${res%,}]"
@@ -151,9 +151,9 @@ _ruby_atoms_samelib_generic() {
"||" | "(" | ")" | *"?")
echo "${token}" ;;
*])
- echo "${token%[*}[RUBYTARGET,${token/*[}" ;;
+ echo "${token%[*}[RUBYTARGET(-),${token/*[}" ;;
*)
- echo "${token}[RUBYTARGET]" ;;
+ echo "${token}[RUBYTARGET(-)]" ;;
esac
done
echo ")"
--
2.24.1
